Welcome to Echoing the Sound. You'll find that quite a few things have changed here since the last iteration of the board so be sure to check out the FAQ. This is a completely fresh start - You'll need to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed (and look for the registration email in your spam folder). To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

If anybody is still buying the line that the US admin is wanting to act out of humanitarian concern, please reconsider. They didn't give a damn about Gazans being subjected to white phosphorus, and they had no qualms regarding the use of depleted uranium or drone strikes.

They are using the chemical attacks to manipulate the public - they know people felt burned by Iraq, and have devised an alternate method of drumming up support.

But ultimately, Russia has its only naval base (outside of Russia) in northern syria, and US/NATO simply wants to knock this piece off the chessboard. (notice all the anti-Russian stories in the news recently? not a coincidence, and it's not like Russia became oppressive and Putin became an asshole recently)

If they gave a shit about humanitarian concerns, they would have acted on Gaza, right now all hell is breaking loose in the DRC and they do basically nothing. Kenyan MPs are voting to withdraw from the ICC (really only one reason you would do that), they prop up the Saudi and Bahrain regimes with money and weapons, facilitating their human rights abuses. There a myriad worse human rights catastrophes underway and in waiting that they mysteriously don't seem to prioritise. Ask yourself why

This is about knocking out one of Russia's assets and expanding the reach of the US-led economic system. This is why they bombed Yugoslavia, and this power struggle between the US and Russia is also why there was that war in Georgia a few years ago (Georgia wanted to build closer ties with the US).

There are various NGOs through which we can help the Syrian people - even if the Western Leaders eventually promise they only want to deliver gas masks and medical supplies, they WILL abuse the opportunity and quickly look for any reason to escalate.

This is not to mention blowback, which is more real for us than it is for the politicians who are chaffeur driven and have security details trailing them.

I don't like what's happening in Syria but the Western leaders cannot be trusted and are NOT interested in a solution to the problems in Syria

I'm aware that this is probably a really dumb question, BUT...the problem is that chemical weapons are against the Geneva Convention, right? And it's the UN's job to enforce Geneva, right?

So, like...why is the US considering taking independent action? It's the UN's responsibility. Granted, the US is PART of the UN, but any action against Syria taken on the basis of violating the convention should be done by a UN-sanctioned body, even if that body includes US military...right?

Fuck, why did I engage? Why did I even try thinking?

The UN isn't doing anything, because the USSR and China are big players and both have insurgents in their own house.

Israel has nukes and is just across the way from Russia. In the immediate area all Russia has is that naval base in Syria. Scissors beat paper. A nuclear-armed proxy in the middle east is an excellent tactical asset

America entered WW2 because it saw an ascendant Soviet Union and a declining British Empire, and decided to step in and make itself the other world power. One of the conditions for entering the war was the breakup of the Empire. This is why they waited so long to get involved (let the European powers exhaust themselves to the point where they come to the table)

Make no mistake, Western Europe (incl UK) is largely a collection of US vassal states - there are American military bases and listening stations absolutely everywhere, and our economies are ultimately subservient to the US in this top-down system.

The smart thing the US did was invade Europe whilst pretending not to invade Europe - they didn't hang US flags from every street corner, and they allow us our petty nationalist indulgences, but ultimately we are their satellites the same as Eastern Europe was made up of Soviet satellite states.

The official narrative is the US stepped in to defend liberty and defeat fascism. I really don't think it's Alex Jones territory to raise an eyebrow at that suggestion, if you look how the balance of power shifted during and after the war, and how the US wasn't really bothered about the rise of Fascism in 30s Europe or the conquests of Japan in the Pacific/se asia region, the real, slightly more cynical & realist motivations become clear

Rammstein's Amerika video becomes again relevant now with Obama rattling the sabres of war. It's interesting how certain pieces of art gain relevance once again based on our current context: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxroiTRg7Tg

So it appears that Syria is welcoming Russia's proposition to hand over their chemical weapons under international control.
If they are in good faith, I don't see why the US would reject this offer. Everybody wins except Raytheon.

So it appears that Syria is welcoming Russia's proposition to hand over their chemical weapons under international control.
If they are in good faith, I don't see why the US would reject this offer. Everybody wins except Raytheon.

Israel has nukes and is just across the way from Russia. In the immediate area all Russia has is that naval base in Syria. Scissors beat paper. A nuclear-armed proxy in the middle east is an excellent tactical asset

America entered WW2 because it saw an ascendant Soviet Union and a declining British Empire, and decided to step in and make itself the other world power. One of the conditions for entering the war was the breakup of the Empire. This is why they waited so long to get involved (let the European powers exhaust themselves to the point where they come to the table)

Make no mistake, Western Europe (incl UK) is largely a collection of US vassal states - there are American military bases and listening stations absolutely everywhere, and our economies are ultimately subservient to the US in this top-down system.

The smart thing the US did was invade Europe whilst pretending not to invade Europe - they didn't hang US flags from every street corner, and they allow us our petty nationalist indulgences, but ultimately we are their satellites the same as Eastern Europe was made up of Soviet satellite states.

The official narrative is the US stepped in to defend liberty and defeat fascism. I really don't think it's Alex Jones territory to raise an eyebrow at that suggestion, if you look how the balance of power shifted during and after the war, and how the US wasn't really bothered about the rise of Fascism in 30s Europe or the conquests of Japan in the Pacific/se asia region, the real, slightly more cynical & realist motivations become clear

Don't you think you're taking this a bit too far? Sure, we all know that the official story isn't as cut and dry as we're led to believe, but you're practically making the US involvement in WWII out to be nothing more than a selfish power grab. It's not that far of a stretch to conclude that the US felt legitimately threatened, and while we're listing off the reasons for us becoming officially involved, it's a bit of a coy maneuver to not even mention Pearl Harbor. The exclusion of that point as being a motivating factor (along with the country's war weary isolationist attitude) almost does sound like we're heading a bit into "Alex Jones territory."

Don't you think you're taking this a bit too far? Sure, we all know that the official story isn't as cut and dry as we're led to believe, but you're practically making the US involvement in WWII out to be nothing more than a selfish power grab. It's not that far of a stretch to conclude that the US felt legitimately threatened, and while we're listing off the reasons for us becoming officially involved, it's a bit of a coy maneuver to not even mention Pearl Harbor. The exclusion of that point as being a motivating factor (along with the country's war weary isolationist attitude) almost does sound like we're heading a bit into "Alex Jones territory."

I see what you mean but the difference is you are totalising WW2 in a way I wasn't*, the pacific and European theatres are very seperate and I was discussing US motivations for entering the European theatre, within that context pearl harbour is not relevant. Pearl harbour was attacked by Japan, which necessitated getting the Nazis out of Europe? Two different conflicts

Pearl Harbour was the justification for entering the Pacific war, US entry into the European theatre was to nudge out the Empire and hold off the Soviets - this is not my interpretation, these are the reasons openly and plainly given by the US administration at the time (one of the very conditions for US boots on the ground in France was Churchill's dismantling of the Empire). The Nazi threat to the US is arguable - and certainly wasn't grave by the time they entered the Euro theatre (UK and USSR had the Fascists on the run by that point). I didn't mention Pearl Harbour because I'm discussing the US role in wartime & postwar Europe, it wasn't a coy or purposeful omission - I would never trivialise any aspect of world war 2 on purpose

But on the subject of the Pacific - they were content to sit by and let abominable things happen in nanjing and manchuria, and only entered once a US base was attacked, so again, obviously humanitarian concerns weren't the order of the day (which is fair enough given the great war and the depression were so recent, as you say).

*edit - I have been misleadingly using the terms WW2 and European Theatre interchangeably due to my Euro-centricity, apologies for that

Ukraine troops are allegedly moving towards Donetsk.
The army allegedly took control of an airport in Kramatorsk that had been seized by pro-Russians forces.

I doubt we're witnessing the beginning of WW3. Ukraine not being a NATO country makes all the difference.
I don't think Putin is crazy enough to go into Estonia, despite earlier report that he might have interest in the town of Narva.

Putin can send his SU-24 fighters doing stupid maneuvers in the Baltic Sea, US is certainly not gonna attack unarmed jets.
I think this is just for show.

You've got to be shitting me.
And last week, putin claimed he would back the fuck off, while he appears to be doing just the opposite.
And now we have 600 US infantry men over there flexing at the border...although i'm sure JSOC has been there for months.
The official us position appears to be "Stop doing this shit or we will shoot at you."

The human race makes me sick sometimes...it's not that i'm a nihilist, i'm a pacifist.
Shouldn't we as rational, civilized beings be over the whole war bullshit by now?

So it's pretty much a legit invasion at this point. Ukraine isn't a NATO state, so it isn't an automatic deceleration of war by the other members. Wonder how the UN will handle it? Telling Putin he is being a naught boy hasn't worked so far. Not that I'm a realist by any means, but something needs to be done.